Strategi Memperbaiki dan Menyiapkan Naskah (Manuscript) Hasil Review Akhmad Sabarudin Editor in Chief

Why is revision important and necessary? Which procedure do you prefer? Send out a sloppily prepared manuscript -> get rejected after 1-2 months - send out again only a few days later  get rejected again…. Take 1-2 months to prepare the manuscript  get the first decision after 1-2 months  revise carefully within time limitation….accepted

Revision before submission Revision before submission can prevent early rejection What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best possible state prior to submission? Ask colleagues to take a look and be critical Check that everything meets the requirements set out in the Guide for Authors – again! Check that the scope of the paper is appropriate for the selected journal – change journal rather than submit inappropriately 4

Revision before submission Revision before submission can prevent early rejection What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best possible state prior to submission? If necessary, get a colleague or approved editing service to improve the language and ensure that the manuscript possesses the three “C”s (Clarity, Conciseness, Correctness) Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that the aims and purpose of the study, and the significance of the results, are clear Use a spellchecker 5

Hasil Review Manuscript (Naskah) Decision Recommendation Accept Publish as is Optional minor revision Revise Minor revision Major revision Reject Encourage resubmission after substantive changes Strongly against publication

Strategy to Revise Revision should be made according to Reviewer`s and Editor`s comments Deciding What to Change Revising the Paper

Deciding What to Change We must address all comments We can’t pick-and-choose which comments to address Even minor comments need to be addressed Address does not always mean change Author and co-authors should decide what to change, and what to defend Often, changing is the easiest route (demonstrates openness to suggestions)

Deciding What to Change Change does not always mean revamp Easy changes include: Rewording Adding extra references Adding an extra paragraph, table, or figure Adding an appendix More difficult changes include: Modifying your central hypothesis Modifying your main algorithm Redoing an experiment

Deciding What to Change Always change technical errors It’s the reviewer’s job to find these Even minor errors can cause doubt Always change errors in references Skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors You don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with experts in the field by not citing the correct papers in the correct order

Deciding What to Change Always change parts which yielded “I didn’t understand”-type comments If the reviewer didn’t understand it, the readers might not either The effort required to defend this point will be more than the effort required to change the paper “I didn’t understand” is a polite way of saying “you didn’t explain clearly enough”

Deciding What to Change Always change parts which are have been mentioned by multiple reviewers If two or more reviewers make similar comments, the readers will likely have the same comments Repeated comments stand out to the editor The effort required to defend this point will be more than the effort required to change the paper

Revising the Paper Divide the comments into two categories: Easy changes Difficult changes Do the difficult changes first This might take some time (especially if you need to repeat an experiment) Easy changes might be eliminated Consult with your co-authors on changes

Revision after submission (Post-referee revision) Carefully study the reviewers’ comments and prepare a detailed letter of response Respond to all points; even if you disagree with a reviewer, provide a polite, scientifically solid rebuttal rather than ignore their comment Provide page and line numbers when referring to revisions made in the manuscript Perform additional calculations, computations, or experiments if required; these usually serve to make the final paper stronger 16

Revision after submission State specifically what changes you have made to address the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page and line numbers where changes have been made Avoid repeating the same response over and over; if a similar comment is made by multiple people explain your position once and refer back to your earlier response in responses to other reviewers or the editor 17

Revision after submission Clearly differentiate responses from reviewers’ comments by using a different font style Reviewer’s Comments: It would also be good to acknowledge that geographic routing as you describe it is not a complete routing solution for wireless networks, except for applications that address a region rather than a particular node. Routing between nodes requires further machinery, which detracts from the benefits of geographic routing, and which I don't believe you have made practical. Author’s reply: We agree and will add an appropriate caveat. Note that for data-centric storage (name-based exact-match and range queries for sensed events), the storage and query processing mechanisms "natively" address packets geographically – without a "node-to-location" database. Dr. Ramesh Govindan, Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California